Kevin Wong gave an informative and engaging talk, “8 lessons as a UX professional,” at the University of Washington’s Information School in late October.  Since graduating with his BS in Informatics from UW in 2007, he’s worked as a user researcher (and designer) at the design firm, Artefact.  The purpose of the talk was to give iSchool students some context about what it means to work in the UX field. I’ve been curious about Artefact and following the company for about a year or so and thought I’d check out his talk as an alum.  

What follows are my rough notes from his talk. Unfortunately, my notes for each slide were not all scribbled in my notebook equally (I left my Macbook Pro at home).  I was able to write down more with some slides than I was for other. But each was important!

Kevin first gave some context around what it means to be a user researcher and why he was drawn to the field.  Basically, his job attempts to understand why people do what they do; to understand behaviors, goals, and motivations.

Slides:

1. Develop a point of view: As a researcher/designer it’s important to have your own unique, thought-out way of approaching problems. Kevin gave the iSchool’s ethos of openness as an example of a point of view.
2. Build a case:  Where does a solution come from? Justify it. Do the research up front to build your case using  1) first hand data like going out and talking to real users 2) second hand information like trend analysis and market research that companies like Forrester provide.
3. Keep it simple:  We’re all limited on time.  About making pitches: executives want the meat and potatoes, not everything on the farm.  While you might find all kinds of interesting data points from your study and research, boil down the important information while making a pitch.
4. Think about outcomes: Ask, what do I want to develop in the end? It will make a difference in how you work whether the final outcome is a simple prototype, flash prototype, research report, or video.
5. Get feedback: Often! There is no reason not to get feedback.  Make prototypes and go out and test them and then learn from your mistakes.
6. Tell stories: This helps you focus on the information you want to present. This is hard, it’s a art, and something that requires practice.
7. Use what you know best: Regarding what tools to use, there’s no set combination of tools, no silver bullet. Use what you know best because you’ll be most effective using those tools.  Artefact tries to encourage a multitude of tools at their company , instead of being a one-tool shop.  This allows for more flexibility in applying the right tool to demonstrate X or Y functionality in a prototype. In other words, one tool might be great in demonstrating one functionality, while another might do better at showing a different functionality.
8. Work with people who are better at something else:  People new to a field often start off as generalists, and then specialize over time. But how do you figure out what to specialize in? Think about what it is that you really like doing and are good at, and use it as a vertical.  Amazing mind-share and creation can happen when two people who specialize in different areas come together and partner on a project (or aspect of a project). We can’t be experts in everything. But we can learn from others who are experts and share our own expertise to move a project forward.

After the presentation, Kevin took questions from the audience.

A student asked what classes he took and recommends.  Research Methods, Design Methods, but especially his Capstone Project were important.  (Incidentally, his capstone project was the same as mine: conference design!) Kevin related that the capstone project allowed him to apply things he learned in class. He advised, “work with people who compliment you; who think about the same problem, but in different ways.” I loved this answer.

Someone else asked what got him the job at Artefact.  ”LinkedIn is your best friend.” (I joined LinkedIn after his presentation.)  He also advised working on your portfolio.  In response to another question about how to make a good portfolio he had several points:

• talk about the problem
• showcase your solution
• highlight your process (how did you get to your solution)
• show evidence
• show your role
• (Also problem solvers can take any domain and think about it. Does your portfolio show that?)

I asked Kevin what books he recommends, and any other reading material he keeps up with.  His response:

Books:

• Designing Interactions by Bill Moggridge
• Blink by Malcom Gladwell

Other reading resources:

• Boxes and Arrows
• UX Matters
• Blogs of other design firms like Frog
• Adaptive Path
• Fast Company
• Research and Strategy [I couldn’t locate a link for this one.]

Another very cool thing I learned during Q&A was about Artefact’s White Spaces Initiative which functions similarly to Google’s 80/20 principle (or, as we joked, their 100/20 principle due to the long hours Google employees typically log).  The idea behind the White Spaces Initiative is to leverage employees’ natural passions and interests. When time allows, employees can dive deeper into subjects they’re naturally interested in. For instance, one employee is enthusiastic about the idea of wearable technology and sensors as fashion.

I left Kevin’s talk impressed both with him, and Artefact. In fact, it’s what lead me to ask him for an informational interview.  

Johnny Holland has a fantastic interview with anthropologist and researcher, Genevieve Bell who is the director of Interaction and Experience Research at Intel.

Storytelling and social participation, this woman is speaking my language!

Currently, we are exploring changing notions of storytelling and social participation; charting the shift in use of cameras, phones, and televisions; and hacking the latest screens, printers, and sensors to see what we can make with them, just to name some of our work. (my emphasis)

On collaborating across disciplines: 

DM: On the subject of messiness, designers are stepping up to challenges that address cultural, technological, and political complexity. We’re not only collaborating with other disciplines, but our work itself is becoming transdisciplinary. What do you see as the strengths and limitations of the designer’s contribution? What do we need to be aware of?

GB: I think our biggest challenges (and opportunities) are about creating the possibilities of collaboration. For me, that means we need to invest in making our work, our methods, and our insights intelligible to the broadest possible base. Being transdisciplinary means committing to work across disciplines and across cannons and methodologies. It means we have to be generous and genuine and always committed to moving the conversation forward.

On neo-Marxism, and understanding the whole, socio-political system:

DM: What new skills and knowledge should interaction designers who’ve been focused on screen-based projects be developing now to design for smart objects and environments?

GB: I think there is a lot to be gained for reading the work in material culture from neo-Marxism through the Manchester School and the various American reinterpretations of cultural studies. There is much to be gained from the theoretical perspectives that have been rehearsed in that body of work. I think we need to continue to privilege thinking holistically. Even if you are not designing for the whole system or the whole environment, I suspect you need to understand it. For me, that means we also need to attend to ideas of power, both social and political, as it has much to do with these news spaces we find ourselves exploring. (my emphasis)

Bell’s interview does a good job of highlighting the importance of social sciences in design and design research. Who knew that my BA in Sociology would come in handy in this way? I certainly didn’t.

Lots more yummy brain food in her interview — go read the whole thing.  You can also catch her at Interaction 12 in Dublin as she will be one of the keynote speakers.

In October, I discovered an intriguing post by Kevin Walker, “Design Research and Research Design,” and tweeted my key takeaways.  While interesting, it’s somewhat of a long read, which makes it perfect for an experiment I’m trying out: augmenting Twitter with Tumblr. The reasons behind this experiment are to: 1) cut to the chase of meaty articles, yet provide a bit more context than Twitter’s 140 articles allows as to why I find them important, 2) keep interesting articles from getting lost and forgotten in my Twitter stream (I’m close to 4000 tweets right now).  Hopefully Tumblr’s search function and ability to tag will be an improvement over Twitter’s abysmal findability!

The thrust of Walker’s piece is how we can improve research with design methodology and design thinking: 

Much of design is informed by research of some sort; research, on the other hand, is almost never informed by design. Over the past several months, my students and I have built a curriculum centered around the idea that research and design are two sides of the same coin. We took it for granted that research can inform design; what took us by surprise was the great extent to which design can, in turn, enhance research. (my emphasis)

Also interesting: applying journalistic methods to research:

Indeed, while not necessarily seen as worthy in academic circles, journalistic methods have long been perceived as accepted practice in design research: interviewing people, investigative research, writing it up in concise and coherent stories — this is one of the strongest ways designers come to know their users. Calling it journalism — even investigative journalism — instead of scenarios or user stories exposes critical issues to the budding designer-researcher: it introduces methods, helps to define motives and ethics, and reinforces the necessity for ruthless objectivity. (my emphasis)

Another important point Walker makes is around communicating ideas. I couldn’t agree more — communication is paramount! Successful designers are masters at engaging their audience through the story of their design.  

More important than tools, though, research desperately needs design expertise to better communicate its findings. We found this out first-hand when it came time to present the results of our airport project to industry and government officials. So accustomed were they to reading long, boring reports and documents that simply seeing research concisely and visually presented on nicely-designed posters was a revelation to them. Some of the students’ work was immediately picked up for commercial development. (my emphasis)

I enjoyed reading how — through the process Walker outlines in his post — his design students changed how they approached design projects. They saw the importance of research:

It was vindication that we were doing something right. More important to me was watching the students go from designers to researchers: in January they tended to approach projects with already sketched-out ideas in their heads; by June they were already formulating their own methodologies and handing in publication-quality research paper. (my emphasis)

Biggest takeaway:

As designer-researchers, we can make our own tools for investigation.

This seems obvious, but important. I’m always curious how different researchers invent new methodologies on the fly to best answer research questions. Applying design methodologies and thinking to this process can, I think, help us to be more successful.

(Hat tip: David Sherwin, @changeorder)